Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor
I am trying to sell my co-op apt right now and have lined up a buyer. The buyer does not make enough income on his own qualify for the apartment, but his father, a rich dude, is willing be a co-purchaser. However, I have just been told by my coop board that they frown upon…
I am trying to sell my co-op apt right now and have lined up a buyer. The buyer does not make enough income on his own qualify for the apartment, but his father, a rich dude, is willing be a co-purchaser. However, I have just been told by my coop board that they frown upon co-purchaser and will be more inclined if it is a guarantor situation. I am thoroughly confused now, maybe someone can provide some much needed clarification?
Why is guarantor more desirable than a co-purchaser? From a finance perspective, I would thought the co-op would prefer to have the rich dude’s name on the property.
Since the buyer does not make enough money on his own to qualify for a loan, I am not sure that a guarantee from the father would do any good from a lender’s perspective.
Can someone educate me? Thanks.
A big advantage with a trust fund baby is you can make arrangements with the trustee to send the payment every month.
This is good in case the little darling forgets.
Trustees are highly responsible individuals.
Yes, there is a difference between trust fund babies and kids with rich parents. A trust fund baby will have no problem qualifying for a co-op even in prime BK. I would LOVE to have a trust fund baby as a buyer for my apt; the board will welcome him/her with open arms.
And I’ll add that we need wealthy people with trust funds to live in NYC, specifically in Brooklyn because people like to donate a chunk if not all their money locally which is essential for local organizations big and small.
If there were no trust funds there would be no art museums, no theatre, no charities that help the poor, hospitals would be half the size with half the resources. Just to name a few things that are funded by philanthropists largely with inherited wealth.
Rob, you’re amusing but really, MUST you always compulsively provide unhelpful comments on subjects you know absolutely nothing about? And then do it in such an authoritative way? Most of the time I find it hilarious but today it’s annoying.
trust fund is totally misused as a term… thanks for trying to clarify ysabelle. real trust funders have the money! that’s what a trust fund does – gives the next generation or two down the line actual cash. i went to college with real trust fund kids, and they are seriously rich when the fund starts paying- differs at what age it comes into play. their own financials would get them anything they wanted without a co-purchaser.
i don’t think someone’s parents helping them out is any different now then any other time. NYC is a tough place to buy in to, and I don’t thing that a young person who needs family help would necessarily make a bad neighbor.
there’s a young person a couple of stories above me who I know had help from her parents, and she’s been a terrific neighbor in every way and absolutely has a real job.
my hardest working employee, who is amazing, just bought a coop with the help of her Dad, and I can’t imagine her causing anyone any problems.
I agree that it is always nicer to have shareholder who can pay their own bills..but if the board turn down a trust fund baby, they are left with an absentee shareholder (me) who may have to default on the maintenance and mortgage. The coop will actually be the loser; of course, I will be royally screwed too.
Any responsible coop board prefers to have resident shareholders who can pay their own bills. It is generally not a problem with a co-owner but can be (and thery may have been purned one way or another in the past). They are looking out not for your interest but fo that of all the shareholders. And many people do not appreciate the wealthy trying to get what they want by avoiding taxes (gist tax).
“crimsonson=trustfundy with coop ”
Patently false – but that come back does not even make any sense.
-sigh- Thanks everyone and Babs, special thanks to you for your advice. I promise I won’t dance naked in the hallway; it would not have been a pretty sight. It’s just so frustrating to have your financial life in the palm of a body as unaccountable and absolute as a co-op board. Their rejection may well spell utter diaster for me whereas their approval, given the circumstances, would hardly constitue a hardship to the coop in anyway. I know that the board doesn’t have to take my interest into account, but it just seems so wrong that so much of my life is depend on the board literally saying, “well, I just like purple better than lavender…so no to lavender”. KWIM?